Authorities must allot alternative land when granted land is taken for a public project.

The petitioner stated that he had cultivated 2 acres 35 guntas in Sy. No. 7, Mylanahalli Village, for over three decades as an unauthorised occupant.

The Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorised Occupations granted him the land in 1994, and a saguvali chit was issued in 1997.

The grant was subsequently cancelled because the land was required for construction of the International Airport through KIADB.

In W.P. No. 16815/2004, the High Court directed consideration of the petitioner’s case, and the petitioner later sought alternative land.

The Tahsildar rejected that request by endorsement dated 16 September 2015, which the petitioner challenged in this writ petition.

1. Whether the endorsement rejecting the petitioner’s request for alternative land was liable to be quashed as contrary to the earlier High Court order.

2. Whether the authorities should be directed to identify and allot suitable Government land in lieu of the grant taken for the airport project.

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

The Court applied the principle that public authorities must comply with directions previously issued by the High Court in the same matter; an administrative decision inconsistent with those directions may be quashed, and appropriate relief may be granted through a writ of mandamus.

The Court found that the petitioner’s grant had been cancelled because the land was required for the airport, and treated the earlier order in W.P. No. 16815/2004 as requiring that he be considered for alternative land.

Because the authorities had not acted on that direction and the 2015 endorsement rejected the request, the Court held that the endorsement was contrary to the earlier order and could not stand.

It also considered the petitioner’s memo identifying Government land in nearby villages and directed the Deputy Commissioner to identify suitable land or ascertain the availability of the lands referred to in the memo.

It directed respondent No. 2 to identify suitable land, or ascertain the details of the lands identified in the petitioner’s memo, and allot land in lieu of the earlier grant within six months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.